Mark Horne: Do I Have to Go to Church?
With permission of Rev. Mark Horne (blog), I’m posting here in full his essay “Do I Have to Go to Church?” as an indirect response to some of my recent musings about church and pastoral ministry as we know them today (here and here), as well as the “Personal Relationship with Jesus” discussion. I was particularly intrigued with the section “Misunderstanding God” in which he links the necessity of our binding to a local church to the Trinitarian nature of God.
Original article is located in Mark’s Theologia web site at http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/do_i_have_to_go_to_church.htm
Do I have to go to Church?
by Mark Horne
copyright © 1999
Imagine driving up to Canada and stopping at a restaurant to get a bite to eat. While you’re sitting at the table, an enthusiastic young man comes over to you and says in an excited voice, “Are you an American?”
You reply, “Yes, I am.”
“Wonderful! I have so little fellowship up here with fellow Americans.”
“Have you lived in Canada a long time?” you ask.
“Oh yes, all my life. I was born here.”
“Oh… So your parents were Americans?”
“No, sadly my parents remained Canadian all their lives.”
“Then how did you become an American?”
“Well, one day I found a tract that told me about American ideas. I was transfixed by their power and adopted them as my own. I was born again, you might say. From that day on I have believed in Americanism. I have memorized all of the Declaration of Independence and portions of the Constitution, and I subscribe to the Congressional Register.”
Now, of course, that would never happen. America is not an ism–a mere set of ideas like Marxism or Confucianism. We all know that nations are objective social realities, involving citizenship and governmental authority and borders and rights and privileges and duties. Of course, not all nations are geographically particular. The Jews have existed for centuries as a distinct nation without a particular land or civil government. The Gypsies, the Kurds, and the Basques are similar. Nevertheless, whether you are a Jew, Gypsy, Kurd, or Basque does not simply depend on whether or not you believe certain things in your heart. That’s part of the picture, but not all of it.
Misunderstanding God
In both the West and the East, people commonly think of the being they call “God” as some sort of vague ghostly force which cannot be approached except through some sort of vague, internal–often called “spiritual”–contemplation. At best, this “God” is considered personal, and the “spiritual” exercise involves verbal communication–prayer. Nevertheless, as important as prayer is, it is hardly an adequate way, by itself, to relate to a real person. Believing in such a God too often resembles a child’s imaginary friend.
In contrast to this popular view, the God presented in the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures is a real person who has real relationships with human beings. More than that, He is a great king over the whole universe (which He made in the first place). People who are rightly related to Him are said to be members of His kingdom, citizens of His commonwealth. In the words of Saint Peter, writing to such persons: You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy (1 Peter 2:9 & 10). Saint Peter is quoting the words of Moses which God gave him to say to the nation of Israel: If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:5 & 6). Whether a national society as at the time of Moses or an international society as at the time of Saint Peter and even today, God has always been someone who had real relationships with human beings. Because he is a king, the society formed by these relationships can only be a kingdom.
But there is more. God is not only a real person, but has also revealed himself as three persons. This is extremely mysterious, and completely alien to the conceptions of God posited by all other religions, but it is inescapable from the way God has worked in history. God sent Jesus to us and in so doing sent himself-God with a human face. Jesus claimed and proved himself to be God. Furthermore, he revealed God as “Father” and spoke with him as another person. Finally, he promised “the Spirit,” and made it clear that the Spirit was a person and was just as much God as himself and the Father. Thus, the Christian tradition has developed the term Trinity to emphasize the “threeness” of God as Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit.
Now the Trinity is, as I said, very mysterious, but its implications are breathtaking, because it means that God is a society. From before time began, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have enjoyed a relationship of love. By initiating a relationship with human beings, God draws them into the eternal relationship of love which exists among the persons of the Trinity. Jesus put it this way when he was praying to God for his disciples: The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you have loved me (John 17:22 & 23).
Notice here that Jesus speaks of the glorious unity which his disciples should have is not some internal state of affairs, but a visible unity which no one around can possibly deny. Jesus wants his followers to form an objective society in order to demonstrate that God is a society–a community of love between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit into which we have been brought as members.
So, because God is a real person with kingly authority, his followers cannot help but be formed into a real kingdom, just like Canada or any other nation. And because God is a community, his followers cannot help but be formed into a real community. That God is a real person and persons means that we can have a real relationship with him. This network of relationships, this society, kingdom, or community is known as the Church.
Alienation & Reconciliation
Not everyone is a member of the Church. This is rather odd. After all, God is the God of everyone since he made everyone. Why would not everyone belong to his kingdom and community?
According to the Bible, there was a time when all humanity was part of God’s community. In fact, they were God’s family. According to the Gospel of Luke, Adam, the first human being, was God’s son. That doesn’t mean that Adam was of the same nature as God. The Bible is very clear that Adam (and afterwards, his wife Eve) was created by God, not spawned from him in some way. Nevertheless, God made Adam and Eve, according to the Bible, “in the image of God,” and adopted them as part of his family. So at that time, the entire human race did belong to God’s kingdom and community, just like you would expect.
But Adam and Eve rebelled against God by disbelieving and then disobeying him. As a result, the whole human race became alienated and orphaned from God. Adam and Eve were exiled from God’s presence and cast out of his kingdom. Because God is the source of all life, they and their children were left under the power of death.
Yet God did not leave the human race in its misery. Rather, he began immediately to promise and work towards reconciliation with the human race. Noah, Abraham, David, and many others in the Bible were restored to fellowship with God. Their disobedience was forgiven and they were reconciled as part of God’s new community. Indeed, from beginning to end the Bible is mostly about the history of God’s second society for humanity. He called people and used them to form a network of new restored relationships with himself. Within this new society, he promised the forgiveness of all disobedience and the resurrection of the body so that the curse of death would be undone.
I have already mentioned that the nation of Israel under Moses was called a “kingdom of priests,” the same term which was later given to the international Church. But Israel was not only considered God’s priestly kingdom, but also his family. Moses told the Israelites, You are the children of the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 14:1), and God said through Moses: Israel is my son, my firstborn. Obviously, in reconciling them to himself, God made Israel part of his family. Since, the human race had, in a sense, “run away from home,” those of the human race restored to God’s kingdom were restored to their status as God’s children-they were restored to God’s family.
How did God accomplish this reconciliation? How did he provide adoption and forgiveness of offenses for these runaway children? The answer lies in Jesus of Nazareth. Saint Paul wrote: When the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman . . . that we might receive the adoption as sons (Galatians 4:4 & 5). God the Son became and remains a true human being so that we alienated human beings might become sons and daughters of God. He suffered death in our place. Moreover, Jesus was raised from the dead and given new life from God, so that we too might receive new life. That life from God is given by His Spirit. The Spirit makes us a part of Jesus and Jesus a part of us so that all Jesus did counts toward us. Those incorporated into Jesus by the Spirit are given a right relationship to God because they share in Jesus’ relationship with his Father. In Jesus we have reconciliation.
And that means that in the Church we have reconciliation. The Church, after all, is considered to be, in a mysterious but very real sense, the body of Jesus. As Saint Paul wrote: God delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. . . . He is also head of the body, the Church (Colossians 1:13, 14, 18a).
Entering & Remaining in the Kingdom
The Church as an international society manifested in local congregations is the people of God. It is both the object and the means of reconciliation–the restoration to friendship with God through Jesus in the Spirit.
Do you have to go to Church? It depends on what you want. Do you want to remain alienated from God or do you want to be reconciled with Him?
Ultimately, it all comes down to trust. The Church doesn’t look like much in our day. Scandals involving the clergy are reported almost weekly. Many sermons are often useless, if not outright harmful. Furthermore, becoming a member of a local congregation and regularly attending worship involves a real cramp on most lifestyles. Many can think of places where they’d rather be on Sunday morning than at Church. And joining a local church almost always involves giving up a degree of personal autonomy, which we Americans tend to prize so much.
But, if you trust God–if you believe not only that he exists but that he keeps his promises in the Bible–then no sacrifice could be too great. God promises to save his people, to forgive their sins and raise them from the dead to a glorious new existence. He has give us a guarantee of this promise through raising Jesus from the dead by his Spirit. That same Spirit draws people into the Church which Jesus founded through the Apostles. Nothing the world has to offer can compare to such great things. Joining a church and regularly worshiping there is simply a demonstration of faith in Jesus–of trust that God is reconciling the world to himself and that you need that reconciliation.
Of course, this faith must include a trust in Jesus as the one who suffered for us, and rose again as our representative. We should pray to him privately and read his Word in the Bible. But God calls his people into community, to be part of his family and kingdom, to publicly and corporately worship him, and to interact with one another as brothers and sisters and as fellow-citizens.
What are you waiting for?
copyright © 1999
Share on Facebook
August 29th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Starts with contradiction:
“We all know that nations are objective social realities, involving citizenship and governmental authority and borders and rights and privileges and duties. Of course, not all nations are geographically particular.”
Which is it? Nations are defined by ‘borders,’ among other things, but don’t have borders? (are not ‘geographically particular’)
After this contradiction, Horne proceeds.
Next problem: “Hebrew-Christian Scriptures”
Doesn’t this PCA pastor know that we reject the Hebrew Scriptures as Protestants, as they do not contain the New Testament? and doesn’t Horne know that Hebrews (Jews) reject the New Testament books we include in the Canon?
So many problems!
What am I waiting for? Sanity in the midst of such theological chaos. To the neglect of the Gospel, which calls men to Christ, Horne, and the poster of this blog, overemphasize the visible Church, making it a Mediator, and replacing Christ Jesus:
“The Church as an international society manifested in local congregations is the people of God [Contrary to WCF XXV, 1, and EPH 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. COL 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.]. It is both the object and the means of reconciliation–the restoration to friendship with God through Jesus in the Spirit. ["the means of reconciliation"? No: Christ is the Reconciler, and the means is faith in his blood--use your concordance].
Do you have to go to Church? It depends on what you want. Do you want to remain alienated from God or do you want to be reconciled with Him?”
So, by going to Church, I’m reconciled? What if I’m among the reprobate? This ‘free offer’ is as unbiblical as Horne is. The Gospel is not Go to Church; it is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.
What a mess. Mark, I hope you don’t get your knickers in a twist, but you need to be either more discerning, or more studious, and read this stuff first and also run it through the grid of Scripture before you post it. Are you a Westminster Seminary East student?
August 29th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
What Horne should have said was that participation in the visible Church has its roots in the Gospel–it is an implied and inferred deduction of the truth that Christ has died for our sins according to the Scriptures (the ‘our’ applies to those who believe, only).
To make the Church a Mediator–”…the means of reconciliation”–is sacralistic, or sacralism. Teaching that being a visible-Church member saves you, or that religious observances are necessary to salvation, is the false gospel of neo-legalism.
But, the Gospel is not, Go to Church.
August 29th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Dear Ron:
I’ve played Reformed Scrabble before. I’m not playing today. What is Reformed Scrabble? It’s where bright young Reformed guys with nothing better to do than witch hunt on people’s blogs play at words. The object is not knowing God better, but winning the game by getting all your Reformed word tiles on the board in the right places.
Am I being too harsh? I think not, when your opening argument is to attack Horne for a “contradiction” in his opening sentences that has nothing to do with proving or disproving his argument. Horne said that nations have borders. In the next sentence, he says that there are nations that are not geographically particular. A contradiction? Only to the Reformed Scrabble player. Can a nation have a border that is not geographically particular? Yes…when it is a spiritual nation. The people of God have a “border” (the sheepfold of the Great Shepherd) but come from every tongue, tribe, and nation. That’s so obviously what Horne means, especially from the context of the rest of his piece. But is the Reformed Scrabble player interested in what the other player actually means? No…he just wants to score points for using his words properly.
Same thing with “Hebrew-Christian Scriptures.” Means the Bible, Ron. OT came from the Hebrews. NT came from Christians. Yes, yes, I know…don’t go hurling your Scrabble tiles about the room like that…our canon is now a Christian canon; there is only one Bible and it is Christian. But we knew that’s what Horne meant, didn’t we? Everyone else did, I’m sure. But not the Reformed Scrabble player. He scores points by catching the other player in putting a bad word on the board (”them filthy He-brews!”).
WCF XXV, 1 reads: “I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” How does that contradict “The Church as an international society manifested in local congregations is the people of God”? Sounds the same to me.
And your final game…jumping all over Horne for his use of “mediator” and “reconciler.” Did he put them in your triple score space? Come on, if you’ve read Horne for any length of time you know that he fully understands that there is one Mediator between God and man for salvaion, Jesus Christ. But he dared to use the words in a different context, that Jesus, the one and only Mediator (capitol “M”) chooses to “mediate” his work of “reconciliation” (small initial letters…we’re not using Big Bible Words at this point) in and through his church. Hardly heresy; pretty much what plenty of your Reformed gods have said through the past 400 years. By the way, lots of those guys with the funny beanies said, “Go to church!” too.
And what seminary do I go to? You can find out easily enough on the pages of this blog, but I’m not going to play your game by answering that question. As soon as I do, you can make your final Reformed Scrabble Big Play by toting out all the poop you’ve heard about that particular seminary.
Maybe they’re playing Reformed Scrabble over in the park today…over there next to the Church Politics chess matches.
August 30th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Mark,
I’m truly saddened that you think I’m playing some kind of game.
Do you know what equivocation is?
Horne does this with the word ‘nation.’ And, if you could provide some Scripture texts that show that the Church is a Mediator, I’d be glad for the correction. I certainly want my ignorance dispelled!
I am glad you posted this:
“WCF XXV, 1 reads: “I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.†How does that contradict “The Church as an international society manifested in local congregations is the people of Godâ€?”
Right here you show how Horne is equivocating. He is postulating that the church is visible, and in this he is partially correct. But his misrepresentation is in the fact that he does not begin where Scripture, and the Confession following it, begins, which is with the invisible Church. Perhaps you think we cannot begin with election; the Confession, and Paul in such letters as Ephesians, addresses election before they address the nature of the Church. Why shouldn’t we?
As you are so familiar with Horne, you should be familiar with the criticisms I’ve raised (after all, this article has been discussed for some time in other forums). I had hoped you would be more balanced, and biblical, and not follow his errors in making the two senses of the Church (invisible and visible) to be fused together so as to make them indistinguishable.
Let me ask you a question in this regard? Do you believe baptism is the initiation into the Body of Christ?
August 30th, 2005 at 8:36 am
I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on that one. The word nation simply has two different senses in Horne’s two sentences. In the first it is referring to the political entities of this world; in the second to the invisible people of God (Ha! So Horne does refer to the invisble church!). The Bible does the exact same thing. In some places, nation or nations refers to the socio-political entities of those days. In others, it refers to the trans-geographical people of God. So was Peter equivocating when he called the church “a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9)?
Help me if I’m misunderstanding you, but this seems to be another case of what I was talking about above in reference to what I call ‘Reformed Scrabble players.’ Because Horne does not explicate the full Doctrine of the Church in his statement, he must not believe in it. But I just showed that, at least by implication from his nation statement, he believes in an invisible as well as visible church. You are asking Horne to include in every statement about the church a full explication of the church, even if much of it has nothing to do with the topic at hand at the moment. This is akin to the assistance in another thread on this site that I can’t mention the Gospel without a full theological dictionary definition of what it actually is. Unreasonable.
I do begin with election…and so does Horne. We are not writing the letter to the Ephesians; we’re writing a couple of blog posts about why gathering with a local church is an essential (do not read “essential to salvation”) part of a Christian walk. Once again, it is unreasonable to expect a writer to have to provide a full syllabus on every doctrine he references.
I’ll be ‘biblical’ and follow the example of my Lord in answering a question (especially one probably designed to entrap) with a question: Why do you ask?
August 30th, 2005 at 9:21 am
[...] Here is a train wreck for you to rubberneck as you drive by on the internet superhighway. [...]
August 30th, 2005 at 9:53 am
“why gathering with a local church is an essential (do not read “essential to salvationâ€) part of a Christian walk.”
How can anyone carry a conversation with someone who cannot even see his own contradictories, let alone anothers?
The Christian walk, is it part of salvation? If so, and the local church is essential to one’s Christian walk, then, one can only conclude that you, and Horne, believe that the local church (read ‘visible’) is essential to salvation.
And, I disagree. Belief of the Gospel is essential; the doctrine of the Church is implied by the Gospel.
You have the cart before the horse.
August 30th, 2005 at 10:17 am
Ron, this is stupid. You just said that belief in the Gospel is essential for salvation. The Church is implied by the Gospel (I think it’s a considerably more than implied but whatever). Therefore, the Church is essential.
Mark said exactly the same thing. What is a Christian Walk, in its purest sense, if it is not an imitation of Christ that is born of belief in the Gospel?
Quit playing semantics (and badly at that). This is a blog. Not a thesis needing peer review. …besides, it’s not like he’s Catholic or anything…
Mark: if it sounds like a troll, looks like a troll, and smells like a troll, then it’s … what?
August 30th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Lighten up, Mark. I love Reformed Scrabble.
For example, what would Ron do with tiles that say that the church is “the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” Now strangely enough, this comes before the statement that the Lord Jesus Christ, not the pope of Rome, is the head of the church. So were the Westminster Divines equivocating, Ron? It sounds to me like they thought the church was, under ordinary circumstances, essential for salvation. Are they papists in disguise?
September 2nd, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Ron’s motto: have keyboard, will troll.
He sure gets around!